| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 01/27/2014 02:06 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 5 |
> On 27/01/2014 13:59, Tanstaafl wrote: |
| 6 |
>> On 2014-01-26 1:04 PM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> So, not sure where your optimism comes from. But... some devs |
| 8 |
>>> are interested in starting from scratch or picking up pkgcore |
| 9 |
>>> (which would be the most sane thing to do IMO). |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> ? |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> If the problem is really this potentially serious, why start |
| 14 |
>> from scratch, when Paludis is already very mature? Is it pure |
| 15 |
>> politics (someone just doesn't like Ciaran)? |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> No-one likes to admit it, but I think there's some NIH going on |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
If it's about performance (in the sense of speed), then paludis is |
| 25 |
worse, because dependency calculation is more complex/complete there. |
| 26 |
Debatable if that's really a problem, though. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
If it's about code quality... it's probably better, especially because |
| 29 |
it's not that old. But from a few looks at the code, it's not properly |
| 30 |
documented at class/method level (at least I could not find any comments). |
| 31 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 32 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) |
| 33 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJS5mW2AAoJEFpvPKfnPDWzsTEH/jsxytMr2IQhNZcPdWhyNdu1 |
| 36 |
vCkiqV/kejjPtd9xDuRGMa6Adh3Jka1+I287J5ie61H+SU/4+mHYtkq9npohi9T8 |
| 37 |
YFgg8GsdrTfeC3o/d1qIBPHrKCAVs11D9IBYnFjNS4DkqM9chj8itnt7GTRWGZvx |
| 38 |
0i5/nLQPq6fCW3nz9QzRfa6Mocx7m803ayWBpBSocr2xuIX8AsibG8YGTJzPLl64 |
| 39 |
IeZ31QPHJ5CqyIo5cidS2k4ZKnf0tEAJVoJUBWr412UHs+s2w1XaeyWPc1Faena7 |
| 40 |
L40VVjQp/jTjIz6GgMdbQrn/RGNe4rjxNQY2MuSezbqme8NDEtz1PnEZoQR1n9U= |
| 41 |
=L3AQ |
| 42 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives